Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,943   Posts: 1,557,616   Online: 1210
      
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 91
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Jorge,

    I had the opportunity to view both an example of your work and also an example of another photographer (who shall remain unnamed) pertinant to this thread in the traveling portfolio. I must say there is no comparison. Your print was outstanding. I wish that I could say the same about the other print. However, in good conscience I cannot do that. I was absolutely dismayed at what I saw in the other print, to be completely honest.

    A "quick study" apparently does not equate to good prints. There is a vast disparity between "talking the walk" and "walking the talk". In other words anyone can spout jargon...not many can turn out good work.

    As I have found in my life's experience...there has been nothing that has caused me more trouble as when I thought that I knew something when in fact, as I later found out, I didn't have a damned clue.
    Thank you for the kind comment and you are not alone Don, I too have placed foot firmly in mouth many times...this is why I try to confine my posts to what I am sure I know reasonably well.

  2. #52
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by noseoil

    I propose a test. Someone please take a picture, develop and print it. List the SBR, zone numbers or foot candles measured to evaluate the exposure. Project a range of values, then process to a given target value. List the film, developer and whatever numbers will show that theory and practice can be effective. Finally, print the film showing the results in a finished print. (Mike Pry's "early" BTZS pond picture comes to mind at this point, well done Mike) This would illustrate the question in terms more readily understandable than the jargon being bandied about.
    Tim,

    I'd have to disagree that this will be a good illustration of one system over another. The problem with a subjective test such as you've suggested is that there are too many variables involved to make a proper evaluation of the results. Flare for instance. It's next to impossible to measure in the field. Then there's the relationship between LSLR and LER. Not only does it generally depart from the concept of matching at the more extreme ranges, but a subjective interpretation of how well the negative matches the print is influence by the subject - its tones and tonal distribution. You also have statistics working for you. 68% of exterior scenes fall with in +/- 1 1/4 stops of the average luminance range of 2.2. This makes it hard to be too far off in most cases. And this is all in addition to the personal tastes of the photographer. It's incredibly difficult to yield an objective analysis from subjective tests (for example, The First Excellent Print Test).

    Jones, L.A., The Control of Photographic Printing by Measured Characteristics of the Negative, JOSA, vol. 31, Oct. 1942.

    Jones, L.A., Control of Photographic Printing: Improvement in Terminology and Further Analysis of Results, JOSA, vol. 38, n. 11, Nov 1948.

    Jones, L.A., and Condit, H.R., The Brightness Scale of Exterior Scenes and the Computation of Correct Photographic Exposure, JOSA, vol. 31, n. 11, Nov. 1941.

  3. #53
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Forget it Jay...It's Chinatown.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
    Forget it Jay...It's Chinatown.
    It sure is, in more ways than one.....

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Your resume of my suggested technique is correct as to the method for determining exposure, but not for determining SBR.

    Here is what I suggested. The scene is this. You use your incident meter and take readings, but regardless of where you point it you get the same EV reading, which suggests an overall SBR of 5. To compensate, do this. Record the SBR as 5 and then take another reading, covering the cone of the incident meter with your hand so that it does not see the sky. Record the EV reading and subtract it from the value that give you the SBR of 5 suggested earlier. This will give you the adjusted SBR that will be used to determine time of development.Sandy
    THanks - I'll try this out sometime.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    I said: "You CAN develop film to a given SBR, just as you can develop film to a given CI."

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    This is a false analogy in my opinion. SBR refers to subject lighting conditions and is not in any way dependent on either exposure or development.Sandy
    OK - but then Davis equates SBRs with G-bar (simplified CI) in his book and software. Look at the graphs he produces with it. Each film plot can display the G-bar value along with the associated SBR.

    So is Davis wrong in placing these labels on his graphs? I think not - as he knows that in his system, a particular G-bar IS directly related to the SBR of the original scene.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    CI is a slope created by minimum and maximum densities that is measured after development and results from both exposure and development.
    I'll get back to you on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    It might be ok to say that one can develop to an anticipated CI, but to say that one can "develop film to a given CI" when the final result is not the CI to which one is developing is not reasonable.
    This is splitting hairs. It all really depends on your quality control as I described above. And does it really matter if you are off by a couple of 0.01 CI from your intended target CI?? And if you got achieved a CI that is slightly different than your target CI, then how can you say your blank film got a CI of zero, which you have.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    CI has no reality beyond its realization. If you develop to a CI and get some other slope than what was intended then what you have is another CI.
    What?? "No reality beyond its realization?" CI is a measurement of a property of film development. Please - let's not start discussing "reality" and "realization".

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepry
    Phil goess into this in his BTZS Lite. Metering for 2 dimmensional objects. I think that may help you here.
    Mike, this is a software package?

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    You are plotting a curve to find out average gamma, which you can then associate to a SBR value that you will obtain when taking a photograph.
    Doesn't Davis use "average gradient" or G-bar, not "average gamma"?

    And if Davis is graphing development time vs. average gradient, as well as dev. time vs. SBR, and dev time vs. N, then SBR is directly related to average gradient or N-development values. They are correlated through development time.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Well the results of my knowledge are posted......anybody else wants to back up their claims with a final print?
    Jorge - could you give a link?

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    A "quick study" apparently does not equate to good prints. There is a vast disparity between "talking the walk" and "walking the talk". In other words anyone can spout jargon...not many can turn out good work.
    Donald, artistic ability and technical knowledge are two separate things. Please don't confuse one for the other.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin